None of these Microsoft press releases claim that Android infringes their patents, from what I've seen, only that some companies (which all produce Windows phones) receive a general "IP" license from Microsoft.

Wake me up when a company which *doesn't* make Windows phones signs up.

I cant help drawing parallels to the Novell agreement where Microsoft in practice paid Novell hefty sums to keep going in Microsofts direction, focusing on MS technologies and products.

Would anyone except Nokia keep churning WP7 phones out when it still, one year after release has not gotten more than 0,3% of the market? I strongly suspect Samsung, HTC etc in reality gets paid for using WP7 and dont pay a dime to use Android. Ofcourse on paper they pay Microsoft for licenses, but then they get that money and ten times more back in the form of marketing contributions for WP7.

What are you talking about? Windows 7 is by far the best OS Microsoft has put out and, in my opinion, far easier to use than any other desktop OS (I feel like Apple's OS has stagnated and KDE and GNOME are just poor man's copycats). The swtich from XP to 7 is an easy choice for any company since it is more secure, more stable, and more user-friendly.

You do realize that your response is not mutually exclusive with the GP's comments? An OS can be both more secure and stable, yet unwanted by home and business users. I really like Windows 7 on my work machine but it has been a nightmare trying to migrate my uncle's small law office because a good number of their applications simply do not work.

Still, the GP's point is that most people would chose XP over 7. That's simply not the case. Most people would prefer the newer and better OS. Ignoring the debate that is Vista, 7 is far superior to XP in many many ways and THE VAST MAJORITY would (and did) choose 7 over XP. Fact (even if (and I say if) only for the shiny aero interface)

Who chose Windows 7 over XP? When that's all you can buy from all major OEMs, that's what home and small business users get. No choice involved.

As I said, I like Windows 7 better and I was an XP fan myself. However, most people prefer what they're used to using, not the newer and better thing. The average user sees no major benefits from XP to Windows 7 but they do know that things look different. You need to realize that geeks are a tiny minority in the general population and most people are not like

People typically don't want change no matter what. That is a given. But usually after they get the newer/better/faster they hate going back even more. I remember when we migrated to Office 2007 with the new "ribbon". People went nuts but now they are completely inept if you put them in front of the old version toolbars.

What are you talking about? Windows 7 is by far the best OS Microsoft has put out and, in my opinion, far easier to use than any other desktop OS (I feel like Apple's OS has stagnated and KDE and GNOME are just poor man's copycats). The swtich from XP to 7 is an easy choice for any company since it is more secure, more stable, and more user-friendly.

I will not use my mod points just because I disagree with you. But here's my response:
Windows 7 has been nothing like usable. Usability seriously dropped compared to XP. I mean there are so many small quirks that are damn annoying and not intuitive. I still am baffled by the overwrite dialogue every time it appears. It's the worst usability offender by far, because it uses two UX elements at the same time. Even if Gnome and KDE are "poor man's copycats"(which they no longer are), they are much more consist

I'll likewise not use my mod points just because I disagree with you.
I've been using Windows 7 professionally and personally since its release so maybe it is just me, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Windows 7 is the most newbie friendly Windows OS to date (warning: my evidence being anecdotal). Its not really that much different than XP, and the bits that are are usually changed for good reason (not always, but usually).
Its stability is also amazingly better than XP for the most part.

Stability is awesome, to say the least. But I'm not complaining about stability, it's the usability. It's the UI consistency, which Win7 does not have. There are some productivity features that are interesting. Hell, I even have an atechnical "study group" at home. 7 y/o niece, 30 y/o sister and 60 y/o mother. Windows 7 fails with them, and my sister uses Vista on her laptop.

The ones who wanted it were probably using Vista. I didn't personally think that Vista was as bad as folks thought, but there were a lot of folks that did want an upgrade.

Personally, the only reason I have Win 7 at all is because it's difficult to find a price competitive laptop that doesn't have it. In the end it was cheaper to pay for the license I didn't want than it was to spend extra money and pay for somebody to take the copy off an install something sensible. Why the DoJ doesn't do anything about it

Yes, worked well. They are suits, what do suits care about? Money. Did they make money on the desktop? It worked for them, and therefore will guide their future actions. Can't blame them for doing what they know from desktop PCs and trying to make it work in the phone world - doesn't mean we have to like it, or choose it with our wallet, but I'd be surprised if they didn't try to do to phones what they did to PCs.

Like many others in here, I'm the tech guy in the neighborhood. If I could quickly draw a quick conclusion on my experiences when going to neighbors houses (all of the persons are family heads with all kinds of jobs) to repair the computers or making them faster, it would be something like:All of them run windows, this is a fact. Most of them don't know what is the latest version of windows and they don't care. When I suggest an update (from XP or Vista),

Quote:"Microsoft didn’t specifically reference that post, but today said “For those who continue to protest that the smartphone patent thicket is too difficult to navigate, it’s past time to wake up.” Microsoft doesn’t just collect money from other companies, it also pays out plenty to protect itself, Microsoft’s legal team notes.

“Over the past decade we’ve spent roughly $4.5 billion to license in patents from other companies,” Microsoft said. “These have given us the opportunity to build on the innovations of others in a responsible manner that respects their IP rights. Equally important, we've stood by our customers and partners with countless agreements that contain the strongest patent indemnification provisions in our industry. These ensure that if our software infringes someone else's patents, we'll address the problem rather than leave it to others.”/endquote

The problem there is that MS doesn't include support for other FS, they support NTFS, VFAT, ISO9660, UDF and that's about it. If you choose to use any other OS, then you're choosing to prevent a large group of less savvy users from being able to copy files onto it, either because you're going to need a special utility or because you need special drivers. Either way, it's not a particularly workable solution for a mass market device, and MS knows that.

Maybe, Android phones should just install their own driver to read btrfs or ext2 or something on a windows machine. Or better yet, the vfat file system calls are well documented, all an Android phone needs to do is intercept them and translate to what ever file format they want. The phone only needs an interface that a windows machine will recognize, not to actually store the data that way.

This is why using a document synching or cloud storage service which uses a network protocol instead of a physical connection is so important. You don't need an ext4 driver to download an mpeg file from a Linux server over http or ftp.

The problem there is that MS doesn't include support for other FS, they support NTFS, VFAT, ISO9660, UDF and that's about it

UDF is the real shame - it was originally supposed to be a Universal Disk Format which could be used on HDDs too, and had that worked everyone would be using that instead. But last I looked, windows will choke if you try to use UDF on anything other than an optical disk.

And the new Nexus phone (Nexus Galaxy) and the previous one (Nexus S) has no SD card slot, so there is no need for a VFAT enabled kernel, they probably use MTP like my Xoom does to access the internal memory. Other Samsung devices has SD Card, but not those branded as Nexus.

with this deal over half of all Android devices are licensing patents from Microsoft.

Why is Google silent in this matter? Now before you mod me down, I know Google have made some inconsequential comments. These have not helped at all.

Dicalimer: I am not a lawyer.

If I were Google, I would file a some lawsuit to 'force' Microsoft to reveal the patents that Android is infringing on, or force Microsoft not to mention the word Android in its licensing propaganda.

My suspicions of what is really going on:

1: Microsoft approaches an Android OEM with a 'sweet deal' relating to Android.

2: Microsoft pays the OEM some cash and a deal is struck that results in the OEM saying no word about the deal, but allows Microsoft to spread FUD.

On major OEMs like Samsung, the deal could be about future android based products that would envisage incorporating Microsoft technology (which actually exists and is interesting).

You wonder why the other party says nothing at all about the licensing. But the major thing about all this is the silence of Google.

What Google could do in addition, is to modify the non GPL portions of Android and add language that specifically prohibits licensees from entering into licensing deals like the ones Microsoft touts if they are going to be party to Microsoft's FUD.

Google can't do anything about the FAT patent that everyone has to use for card storage. Consumers expect to be able to pull the SD card from a device and have it usable in something else without having to worry about file system drivers. FAT is the defacto standard for memory cards today.

The industry fell asleep on this one, when they should have all worked together to create a license and royalty free open spec file system. The blew it and are now paying the price, well, we the consumer is paying the pric

and it sounds like Barnes and Nobles big problem with the licensing fee Microsoft wants to extract is that it's close to the same fee they charge to license their mobile OS. ie the fee is excessive for such a small portion of the whole. But they are charging based on how it causes the competitions cost to rise in comparison to their own. B&N brings this up too.

Google is really blowing it by not stepping up both the rhetoric and the court battles on this.

The patent covers VFAT, the long-names extension to FAT. Simple way to avoid the patent, don't support long names, only support FAT on your memory cards. Of course, the license fee for VFAT probably isn't very large so that one might not be worth the the tradeoff.

The thing is, it isnt neccessarily Android that infringes. It may well be the handset makers implementation, maybe even hardware. Note Microsoft hasnt sued Google yet AFAIK. This makes it not Googles problem.

You wonder why the other party says nothing at all about the licensing.

Because both parties agreed to not discuss the specifics of the licensing deal, something that is pretty standard. They (Samsung, HTC, Apple,..etc..) stand to gain nothing by letting their competition (Samsung, HTC, Apple,...etc..) know what their own deal is, as their competition could then easily refuse to accept anything worse. Its the fog of war codified in a non-disclosure agreement that both sides of a negotiation typically insist upon (Barnes and Noble being the exception... but they have nothing

If an OEM is going to licence some stuff from Microsoft for use in Android, that's fine. Let them go ahead, after all Android can be 'extended', being opensource.

The trouble is that Microsoft's FUD is claiming that Android OS *is* is infringing. Let them clarify. Are they saying that the source code as downloaded from Android's website infringes or the additions/modifications to the source code by OEMs make Android devices infringe. All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit c

If an OEM is going to licence some stuff from Microsoft for use in Android, that's fine. Let them go ahead, after all Android can be 'extended', being opensource.

Are you forgetting about the opposite of 'extended?' Android, being opensource, may also be 'limited' by the OEM.

The trouble is that Microsoft's FUD is claiming that Android OS *is* is infringing. Let them clarify.

If you want a specific case clarified you can look at their lawsuit with Motorola where the patents that Microsoft claims are being violated by Motorola are now public information.

All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit can assure this.

It seems like you are the one spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) by pretending that such a lawsuit doesnt exist. There is actual certainty (ie, no doubt) about which patents Microsoft is claiming that Motorola

Google is paying only for ActiveSync, but is certainly paying more than a phone manufacturer would (because Google Apps Sync uses it too, not just Google's Android phones.) Microsoft would have to endanger its current arrangement with Google in order to seek revenue on patents that Google has not licensed in their Android phones.

Things will become interesting with the suite against Motorola, especially if Google is successful in buying them. If Google owns Motorola and Motorola actually pays licenses to Microsoft for using Android, it will be very entertaining. If Microsoft drops the suite (presumingly because the NDA and sweet deal you proposed was not possible with a company owned by Google) it might also be quite revealing.

(I did not find a link about the current state of that case. If it was already dropped please anyone post a

Does anyone else find it ironic that the broken U.S. patent system, and by extension, the broken U.S. government, along with some good-old boy corporate nepotism, is leading us right back to the old Microsoft/Apple duopoly? No more webOS, no more Meego, RIM is on the ropes and Android looks to be next.

Huh? How do you figure? Microsoft had nothing to do with the death of webOS or RIM (not even sure what Meego is) - they committed suicide. And I see this more of Microsoft realizing they have no chance against the Android/Apple juggernauts and want to cash in any way they can. Android's market base is way too big for even Microsoft to take them down at this point.

The thing that bothers me about all this is that Google hasn't stepped into the courts really very much at all yet. These companies are getting screwed using the Google OS and quite frankly, Google should be helping them out in court. I don't understand why they haven't yet.

Also, I hate to be that guy but why do I see SO many people that don't know how to use loose vs lose? You lose a customer. You loose the hounds upon someone. That bolt is loose. You lose bolts all the time. I am not kidding at all...I see it everywhere. I think I'm starting to see this more than the people that can't use then and than right and I am perplexed.

Also, I hate to be that guy but why do I see SO many people that don't know how to use loose vs lose?

It drives me nuts too, but this is the English language in evolution. The reason for the mistake is obvious. "lose" rhymes with "choose". I actually wish at this point that we could adopt "luce" as a spelling of loose (as in not tight) and give up on "lose".

Microsoft are winning this game, they always have been. They will pillage the open source market and as many markets as they can and squeeze it for every cent. yes Android is pseudo open source, but it's less closed that the ms offering or apples bastardisation of bsd.

Freedom isn't as shiny as Apple or Microsoft and it's not as glamorous. Sure if that's what you choose, then go ahead, but as actual day to day user of open source software on my desktop I feel that choice is slowly being taken away from me. How long, I wonder, before I can't run an approved software stack on a motherboard at home?

I see a slow convergence of Microsoft strategies. I don't ever think they will go away, but I wish they would stop trying to impose their will on my choices. Everywhere you turn there is Microsoft throwing its weight around, cementing its monopoly. They are the MacDonalds of Information Technology.

It would be cool if Motorola, for example, would just sell phones with no operating system. Then you could hook it up to your computer and download an open source operating system for free (like Android). Then it wouldn't be Motorola's problem if Microsoft claims mobile linux platforms infringe on their patents. They'd just have to worry about hardware, where I'm sure Motorola has a diverse enough battlechest of patents to protect themselves.

The patent system was put in place to promote innovation. It's a shame that large companies are able to use it to stifle innovation through patent purchasing and subsequent bullying.

MS has evolved into a mafia-like organization. They don't innovate anymore, they just make everyone pay them a "protection" tax. (I'd say the same about Apple, but they still innovate in addition to bullying.)

Whether apple innovate is also questionable. They produce very good gadgets and they polish them very very well, but there's not a huge amount that they've done that is truly innovative.
iPod was just a well polished MP3 player of which there were many before them.
iPhone was nothing new (all-touchscreen had been done by LG prada before iPhone was released)
iPad was a merging of their iPhone and tablet computers (which MS had been trying (and failing) to generate a mass-market in about 10 years previous)
m

One thing that amazes me when people talk about prior art/device evolution is how many people ignore the likes of Compaq/HPs old line of iPaqs. The iPhone etc. is more an advancement/clone of these than anything. Hell, even the name is close.

Microsoft has warned time and time again that they are going to use this method to destroy open source and software freedom.

The strategy:
Microsoft approaches open source business
Microsoft: You know its a dangerous neighborhood. you should pay us for protection.
Business Owner: Protection? from who?
Microsoft: Well...from us really.
Microsoft: Oh and sigh this NDA you cannot talk about this to anyone ok?

This campaign is not limited to Android its an attack on all open source and software freedom.
Its a

I guess if the cellphone manufacturers aren't willing to run Microsoft's mobile OS on their devices, Microsoft will just have to start acting like all the other patent trolls that don't make viable products either.

LOL, I love the idea of MS offsets. We should trade them on a central exchange. Just like people can fly guilt-free knowing that someone will plant a tree to offset their trip, they can use Android and pay you to cut the MS-related guilt.

I offset my MS Tax by introducing people to alternatives to MS software. Someone wants a smartphone without specific needs, I suggest whatever is the best Motorola Android device on their carrier. Someone wants to open a doc file without specific needs, I suggest LibreOffice. Web browser? Firefox/Chrome. That's the best way to hit MS where it hurts.

I don't get it, is this somehow android's fault, that microsoft is extorting android using patents, this is android's fault?

Android is free. Microsoft isn't, and that's actually the message: work with microsoft, don't work with microsoft - either way, they want your money. This is a gigantic sign to every business in existence: don't do business with microsoft.

Or because they had plenty patents of their own and cross-licensed for peanuts. Or just got a good deal. Many patent trolls will give out the first licenses for next to nothing, then try to shake down the rest claiming the rest of the industry has licensed it. We'll see when it comes to court how real their claims are.

Corporate lawyers are pretty good at estimating the success of this sort of thing. Microsoft will probably offer to settle at some point, but have to carry this through a certain way because a threat of a lawsuit is worthless if you aren't seen to be willing to carry it out.

Notice how concepts such as justice and who's actually in the right don't come into this...

oh and Microsoft, please sue amazon please, that might turn out to be fun.

Dear Dell623. We at Amazon regret to inform you that we are already licensing Microsofts IP [google.com], a fact that has obviously has been kept a secret when someone as well informed as yourself doesnt know about it.

this is pure extortion 'you violate our patents we can't tell you which ones'. Why don't you pay us a small percentage of your sales to make the problem go away?

When they sign the standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry, they find out which patents. Barnes and Noble has skillfully tricked some people that arent well informed into thinking that Microsoft refused to disclose the information, when in actuality it was B&N

The list of patents that a given company is claiming another to be violating is NOT publicly available until a lawsuit progresses into the courts, at which point its publicly available and you have your information (see Microsoft vs Motorola)

Motorola had the list prior to the lawsuit, because unlike Barnes and Noble, Motorola isn't the stupid newbie to the industry.

it won't matter since it's the VFAT patent which is the main point here and a VFAT driver on BSD would also be considered under Microsoft's patent. Microsoft's saying "Linux infringes" is more about attacking Linux than it is about making money from there IP. The money they make from these patents is a drop in a bucket compared to what Windows brings in. As usual, this is all about protecting Windows, their only product they live and breath by.